Mixed methods researchers wishing to blur the lines between theory, paradigm, and method and/or design their studies outside of, or in combination with, previously conceptualized design typologies and procedures may feel stifled by rigid descriptions. The purpose of this paper is to reinterpret procedures for mixed methods designs through a non-binary perspective. To achieve this, I leverage Queer Theory’s emphasis on challenging and blurring binaries to explore the methodological possibilities afforded by a non-binary philosophical position. The paper is structured around a table that describes key elements of mixed methods design procedures (i.e., use of philosophical assumptions, placement of theory, purpose of design, research questions, integration, and validity) and reinterprets them through a non-binary perspective.
AlexanderB. K. (2018). Queer/quare theory: Worldmaking and methodologies. In DenzinN. K.LincolnY. S. (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (5th ed., pp. 275–307). Sage.
AnzaldúaG. (1991). “To(o) queer the writer: Loca, escrita y chicana”. In WarlandB. (Ed.), Inversions: Writing by Dykes and lesbians (pp. 249–259). Press Gang.
4.
BaezB. (2007). Thinking critically about the “critical”: Quantitative research as social critique. New Directions for Institutional Research, 133, 17–23. https://doi.org/10.1002/ir.201
5.
BazeleyP. (2018). “Mixed methods in my bones”: Transcending the qualitative-quantitative divide. International Journal of Multiple Research Approaches, 10(1), 334–341. https://doi.org/10.29034/ijmra.v10n1a22
6.
BerlantL.WarnerM. (1995). Guest column: What does queer theory teach us about X?Publications of the Modern Language Association of America, 110(3), 343–349. https://doi.org/10.1632/s003081290005937x
7.
BrownL. (2021). A philosophy, a methodology, and a gender identity: Bringing pragmatism and mixed methods research to transformative nonbinary focused sociophonetic research. Toronto Working Papers in Linguistics, 43(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.33137/twpl.v43i1.35965
8.
BrowneK. (2010). Queer quantification or queer (y) ing quantification: Creating lesbian, gay, bisexual or heterosexual citizens through governmental social research 1. In BrowneK.NashJ. Catherine (Eds.), Queer methods and methodologies (pp. 231–250). Routledge.
9.
BurchP.HeinrichC. J. (2015). Mixed methods for policy research and program evaluation. Sage Publications.
10.
ButlerJ. (1990). Gender trouble: Feminism and the subversion of identity. Routledge.
11.
CamachoS. (2020). From theory to practice: Operationalizing transformative mixed methods with and for the studied population. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 14(3), 305–335. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689819872614
12.
CohenS. S.DuarteB. J.RossJ. (2023). Finding home in a hopeless place: Schools as sites of heteronormativity. Equity & Excellence in Education, 56(1-2), 100–113. https://doi.org/10.1080/10665684.2022.2158394
13.
CousensE. (2023). Androgyny in the archives: 1970s trans and feminist encounters with the promise and politics of non-binary. The Graduate History Review, 12, 164–187. https://doi.org/10.18357/ghr12202321343
14.
CovarrubiasA. (2011). Quantitative intersectionality: A critical race analysis of the chicana/o educational pipeline. Journal of Latinos and Education, 10(2), 86–105. https://doi.org/10.1080/15348431.2011.556519
15.
CovarrubiasA.NavaP. E.LaraA.BurciagaR.VélezV. N.SolorzanoD. G. (2017). Critical race quantitative intersections: A testimonio analysis. Race, Ethnicity and Education, 21(2), 253–273. https://doi.org/10.1080/13613324.2017.1377412
16.
CovarrubiasA.VelezV. (2013). Critical race quantitative intersectionality: An antiracist research paradigm that refuses to ‘let the numbers speak for themselves’. In LynnM.DixsonA. D. (Eds.), Handbook of critical race theory in education (pp. 270–285). Routledge.
17.
CreamerE. G. (2020). Visualizing dynamic fully integrated mixed method designs. International Journal of Multiple Research Approaches, 12(1), 65–67.
18.
CreswellJ. W.CreswellJ. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (5th ed.). Sage publications.
19.
CreswellJ. W.Plano ClarkV. L. (2018). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Sage publications.
20.
CreswellJ. W.Plano ClarkV. L. (2023). Revisiting mixed methods research designs twenty years later (pp. 21–36). The Sage handbook of mixed methods research design.
21.
DuarteB. J. (2019). The relationships between principals and teachers: A queer (er) multifocal study of the neoliberal policy context. The University of Texas at San Antonio.
22.
DuarteB. J. (2021). Situating subjectivities in the macrosocial policy context: Critical/queer multifocal policy research. Journal of Education Policy, 36(5), 691–707. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680939.2020.1739338
23.
DuarteB. J. (2024). Disrupting the binary: Critical mixed-methods as academic resistance. In MichelleD. YoungSarahDiem (Eds.), Handbook of critical education research (pp. 473–488). Routledge.
24.
DuarteB. J.CordovaA. J. (2023). Creating our own spaces: Disruptive approaches to educational leadership research. Journal of School Leadership, 33(2), 141–162. https://doi.org/10.1177/10526846221149673
FoucaultM. (1990). The history of sexuality volume 1: An introduction. Vintage Books.
29.
GarciaN. M.MayorgaO. J. (2018). The threat of unexamined secondary data: A critical race transformative convergent mixed methods. Race, Ethnicity and Education, 21(2), 231–252. https://doi.org/10.1080/13613324.2017.1377415
30.
GiddingsL. S. (2006). Mixed-methods research: Positivism dressed in drag?Journal of Research in Nursing, 11(3), 195–203. https://doi.org/10.1177/1744987106064635
31.
GillbornD.WarmingtonP.DemackS. (2018). QuantCrit: Education, policy,‘Big Data’and principles for a critical race theory of statistics. Race, Ethnicity and Education, 21(2), 158–179. https://doi.org/10.1080/13613324.2017.1377417
GreeneJ. C. (2007). Mixed methods in social inquiry. Jossey-Bass.
34.
GreeneJ. C.HallJ. N. (2010). Dialectics and pragmatism: Being of consequence. In TashakkoriA.TeddlieC. (Eds.), Sage handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (2nd ed., pp. 119–143). Sage.
35.
GuestG. (2013). Describing mixed methods research: An alternative to typologies. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 7(2), 141–151. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689812461179
36.
HajerM.WagenaarH. (2003). Deliberative policy analysis: Understanding governance in the network society. Cambridge University Press.
37.
HammackP. L.HughesS. D.AtwoodJ. M.CohenE. M.ClarkR. C. (2022). Gender and sexual identity in adolescence: A mixed-methods study of labeling in diverse community settings. Journal of Adolescent Research, 37(2), 167–220. https://doi.org/10.1177/07435584211000315
38.
HammersleyM. (2018). Commentary—on the “indistinguishability thesis”: A response to Morgan. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 12(3), 256–261. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689818772764
39.
HaoW. B. (2019). Non-binary methodology: Book review of contemporary arts as political practice in Singapore. Southeast of Now: Directions in Contemporary and Modern Art in Asia, 3(1), 217–226. https://doi.org/10.1353/sen.2019.0016
40.
HardingS. (1993). Rethinking standpoint epistemology: “What is strong objectivity”? In AlcoffL.PotterE. (Eds.), Feminist epistemologies (pp. 49–82). Routledge.
41.
IvankovaN. V. (2015). Mixed methods applications in action research. Sage.
42.
JohnsonE. P. (2001). “Quare” studies, or (almost) everything I know about queer studies I learned from my grandmother. Text and Performance Quarterly, 21(1), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/10462930128119
43.
LibbyC. (2023). Wondrous bodies: Trans epistemology and nonbinary saints. WSQ: Women’s Studies Quarterly, 51(3), 156–169. https://doi.org/10.1353/wsq.2023.a910074
44.
LordeA. (2001). The master’s tools. In RichardsonT.Whittier (Eds.), Feminist frontiers V (pp. ix–xiv). McGraw-Hill.
45.
ManalansanM. F. (2014). The “stuff” of archives: Mess, migration, and Queer lives. Radical History Review, 2014(120), 94–107. https://doi.org/10.1215/01636545-2703742
46.
MaxwellJ. A. (2011). Paradigms or toolkits? Philosophical and methodological positions as heuristics for mixed methods research. Mid-Western Educational Researcher, 24(2), 27–30.
47.
MaxwellJ. A. (2019). Distinguishing between quantitative and qualitative research: A response to Morgan. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 13(2), 132–137. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689819828255
48.
MaxwellJ. A. (2023). Mixed methods design in historical perspective: Implications for researchers. Chapter 3. In PothC. (Ed.), The Sage handbook of mixed methods research design (p. 37). Sage Publications.
49.
MaxwellJ. A.MittapalliK. (2010). Realism as a stance for mixed methods research. In TashakkoriA.TeddlieC. (Eds.), Sage handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (2nd ed., pp. 145–167). Sage.
50.
McLaffertyC. L.Jr.SlateJ. R.OnwuegbuzieA. J. (2010). Transcending the quantitative- qualitative divide with mixed methods research: A multidimensional framework for understanding congruence and completeness in the study of values. Counseling and Values, 55(1), 46–62. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2161-007x.2010.tb00021.x
51.
McRuerR. (2013). Compulsory able-bodiedness and queer/disabled existence. In DavisL. J. (Ed.), The disability studies reader (4th ed., pp. 369–378). Routledge.
52.
MertensD.FraserJ.HeimlichJ. (2008). M or F? Gender, identity, and the transformative research paradigm. Museums and Social Issues, 3(1), 81–92. https://doi.org/10.1179/msi.2008.3.1.81
53.
MertensD. M. (2007). Transformative paradigm: Mixed methods and social justice. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(3), 212–225. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689807302811
54.
MorganD. (2007). Paradigms lost and pragmatism regained: Methodological implications of combining qualitative and quantitative methods. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(1), 48–76. https://doi.org/10.1177/2345678906292462
55.
MorganD. L. (2018). Living within blurry boundaries: The value of distinguishing between qualitative and quantitative research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 12(3), 268–279. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689816686433
56.
MoultonM. (2023, April). “Both your sexes”: A non-binary approach to gender history, trans studies and the making of the self in modern Britain. In History Workshop Journal (Vol. 95, pp. 75–100). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/hwj/dbac033
57.
NastasiB. K.HitchcockJ. H.BrownL. M. (2010). An inclusive framework for conceptualizing mixed methods design typologies: Moving toward fully integrated synergistic research models. In AbbasT.CharlesT. (eds.). Sage handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research (pp. 305–338). Sage.
58.
OnwuegbuzieA. (2012). Putting the mixed back into quantitative and qualitative research in educational research and beyond: Moving towards the ‘radical middle’. International Journal of Multiple Research Approaches, 6(3), 129–219. https://doi.org/10.5172/mra.2012.6.3.192
59.
OnwuegbuzieA. J.HitchcockJ. H. (2019). Toward a fully integrated approach to mixed methods research via the 1+ 1= 1 integration approach: Mixed research 2.0. International Journal of Multiple Research Approaches, 11(1), 7–28.
60.
OnwuegbuzieA. J.JohnsonR. B. (2006). The validity issue in mixed research. Research in the Schools, 13(1), 48–63.
61.
OnwuegbuzieA. J.LeechN. L. (2005). On becoming a pragmatic researcher: The importance of combining quantitative and qualitative research methodologies. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8(5), 375–387. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645570500402447
62.
OnwuegbuzieA. J.LeechN. L. (2006). Linking research questions to mixed methods data analysis procedures. Qualitative Report, 11(3), 474–498.
Pérez HuberL.VelezV. N.SolorzanoD. (2018). More than ‘papelitos:’ A QuantCrit counterstory to critique Latina/o degree value and occupational prestige. Race, Ethnicity and Education, 21(2), 208–230. https://doi.org/10.1080/13613324.2017.1377416
65.
Plano ClarkV. L.BadieeM. (2010). Research questions in mixed methods research. In TashakkoriA.TeddlieC. (Eds.), Sage handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (2nd ed., pp. 275–304). Sage.
66.
Plano ClarkV. L.IvankovaN. V. (2016). Mixed methods research: A guide to the field (Vol. 3). Sage publications.
67.
RottmannC. (2006). Queering educational leadership from the inside out. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 9(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603120500389507
SandelowskiM. (2018). A reluctant but necessary rebuttal to a rebuttal. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 12(4), 366–368. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689818799427
70.
SanscartierM. D. (2020). The craft attitude: Navigating mess in mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 14(1), 47–62. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689818816248
71.
SedgwickE. K. (1990). Epistemology of the closet. University of California Press.
72.
Shannon-BakerP. (2016). Making paradigms meaningful in mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 10(4), 319–334. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689815575861
73.
SmilgesJ. L. (2023). Seasons of nonbinary and neurodivergence; or, so what if we’re all X?WSQ: Women’s Studies Quarterly, 51(3), 29–43. https://doi.org/10.1353/wsq.2023.a910065
74.
St PierreE. A. (1995). Arts of existence: The construction of subjectivity in older white southern women. Doctoral dissertation. The Ohio State University.
75.
TalburtS.RasmussenM. L. (2010). ‘After-queer’ tendencies in queer research. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 23(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/09518390903447184
76.
TashakkoriA.CreswellJ. W. (2007). Exploring the nature of research questions in mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(3), 207–211. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689807302814
77.
TashakkoriA.TeddlieC. (2010). Sage handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research (2nd ed.). Sage.
78.
TeddlieC.TashakkoriA. (2009). Foundations of mixed methods research: Integrating quantitative and qualitative approaches in the social and behavioral sciences. Sage.
79.
VoglS. (2023). Data integration as a form of integrated mixed analysis in mixed methods research designs. In CreswellJ. W.Plano ClarkV. L. (Eds.), The Sage handbook of mixed methods research design (pp. 2–21). Sage.
XieW. (2014). Queer [ing] performativity, queer [ing] subversions: A critique of Judith Butler’s theory of performativity. Comparative Literature: East & West, 20(1), 18–39. https://doi.org/10.1080/25723618.2014.12015486
